New member, and a theory

[rashomon]

A stranger? Generational. That means within the family. So, no, not a stranger or a friend.

Could you be a little less cryptic - whom do you mean? The grandfather? The half-brother?
Do have a timeline of events in your theory? Trying to put together a time line is an excellent litmus test on what could have happened and on what could not have happened, since one has to fit all the evidence into it, not just selected parts.

 

[Albert18]

Trying to put together a time line is an excellent litmus test on what could have happened and on what could not have happened, since one has to fit all the evidence into it, not just selected parts.

You had to have been in Dallas to have killed JFK and you had to be in Boulder and inside the Ramsey home to have killed JonBenet. I know the Ramsey's don't like that rule but it really isn't flexible.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

You had to have been in Dallas to have killed JFK and you had to be in Boulder and inside the Ramsey home to have killed JonBenet. I know the Ramsey's don't like that rule but it really isn't flexible.

Very true. I love your posts, Albert. To date, the only people any of us can say with absolute certainty were in the Ramsey house when JonBenet was killed were John Ramsey, Patsy Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, and of course, the victim herself.

Unless someone can prove someone else was in that house that night and had opportunity to kill JB, then we need to work with who we know for a fact was there. Now you can go over to other boards where posters suggest that JR, PR, and BR were indeed NOT in the house when JB was killed, but those posters have yet to provide any proof that the Rs were lying when they said they were home that night, or proof that they were seen elsewhere by anyone else.

And based on what forensic evidence we have heard of, there is nothing to prove anyone other than a Ramsey was there that night - no hairs, no fibers, no prints, no DNA (that degraded underwear/fingernail DNA is not proof of an intruder.) Instead we have forensic evidence tying the Rs to the crime scene and the body, namely fibers. we have a staged crime scene, polluted by parents who should have known better - the same parents who display a distinct lack of concern and caring about solving the crime, consistently inconsistent and contradicting statements, and inability to remember even simple things like their own possessions when questions are asked.

Yet still people invent fantastical theories that make way less sense than the obvious - a Ramsey did it.

 

[DeeDee249]

Do people really say that PR, JR and BR were NOT in the house when JBR was killed? Unbelievable! Where do they think they were? And they left JBR home alone and went out together on Christmas night when they were due to fly out at dawn?
Or do these people suggest she was killed somewhere else and her body brought back to the home?
And do they not realize how idiotic it would be for the Rs to then say that they themselves carried her from the car, put her in her own bed, and undressed her if they knew she was dead before they got home? In that case, they carried and undressed a corpse.

Hmmm. Maybe they did...

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Yes, DeeDee, someone on another board *actually* suggested the Rs (except JB) were not at home during the night when JB was killed. Now that's really struggling to come up with a theory that makes the Rs innocent. She goes on about all kinds of things - she's found a spelling error in a thesis written by Janet McReynolds from 30 years before the murder that is the same as one in the RN (using 'an' where 'a' is meant) and thinks it's solid proof that J McR wrote the RN and that the McRs were the killers.

Someone else on that same board recently suggested that JonBenet had been taken into the back yard that night, was strung up from a tree, and fell down on the ground in a failed escape attempt...and there is no evidence whatsoever that the cord ever hung from a tree branch, or that JB was ever on the ground outside in the back yard. And get this - the police didn't notice the evidence of scuffle in the yard...because they thought it was too cold for them to go outside and look! As if police officers who LIVE in Colorado wouldn't be used to winter temperatures!

Now that's really refusing to believe the Rs could have done this.

 

[Albert18]

Very true. I love your posts, Albert.

Well thank you Nuisance.

The support and excuses people give the Ramsey's is really not rational. It's a phenomenon I would love to have explained to me. I don't know what the explanation would be but it can't be anything positive or good.

 

[rashomon]

Yes, DeeDee, someone on another board *actually* suggested the Rs (except JB) were not at home during the night when JB was killed. Now that's really struggling to come up with a theory that makes the Rs innocent. She goes on about all kinds of things - she's found a spelling error in a thesis written by Janet McReynolds from 30 years before the murder that is the same as one in the RN (using 'an' where 'a' is meant) and thinks it's solid proof that J McR wrote the RN and that the McRs were the killers.

Someone else on that same board recently suggested that JonBenet had been taken into the back yard that night, was strung up from a tree, and fell down on the ground in a failed escape attempt...and there is no evidence whatsoever that the cord ever hung from a tree branch, or that JB was ever on the ground outside in the back yard. And get this - the police didn't notice the evidence of scuffle in the yard...because they thought it was too cold for them to go outside and look! As if police officers who LIVE in Colorado wouldn't be used to winter temperatures!

Now that's really refusing to believe the Rs could have done this.

When I read what the poster on that forum wrote about JonBent being hung from a tree outside, I first thought this must be some troll to write outlandish stuff like that, but then it became clear to me that (s)he seriously believes it, lol.
The forensic and other circumstantial evidence screams that the Ramseys were involved in the killing of their daughter, but some people just shut their eyes to that evidence. Instead they prefer to "see" things which have no basis whatsoever in fact. One can point out a hundred times to them that, had JB been hung by the wrists, there would have to be rope marks on them - and what answer do you get back: "JonBenet was hung from a tree!" Like a broken record.
It seems that the "keep it simple" principle in true crime cases is too boring for some people ...

 

[Nuisanceposter]

One can point out a hundred times to them that, had JB been hung by the wrists, there would have to be rope marks on them - and what answer do you get back: "JonBenet was hung from a tree!"

I shouldn't laugh (and this really made me laugh), but that's exactly what you get.

This case really isn't that complicated, but wow, I have never seen people deny the obvious like they do with the Ramseys. Any other explanation is preferential to "A Ramsey was the killer," no matter how complex they have to make it.

 

[twinkiesmom]

I think your theory doesn't have tons of supporters because most RDI's can not see past or through Patsy's psychopathology enough to realize the most logical origin of it. Most RDI's have given JR a pass for all but the cover up.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

I used to give JR a pass...but not anymore. I think he had something nefarious to hide or he wouldn't have involved himself in the staging and cover up. I really would not be all that surprised to find out he was the one who administered the head wound, with everything else being done between the two of them from then on. Why would Patsy help him? She also has something to hide.

 

[DeeDee249]

Plus he just LOOKS guilty.

 

[rashomon]

I think your theory doesn't have tons of supporters because most RDI's can not see past or through Patsy's psychopathology enough to realize the most logical origin of it. Most RDI's have given JR a pass for all but the cover up.

Several years ago, when reading about the case for the first time in the German magazine "Stern", my initial thought was that John Ramsey killed JonBenet. But at that time I didn't know that Patsy in all probablility wrote the ransom letter, nor did I know about the fiber evidence implicating her.

It seems that Patsy was the main stager of the scene. But would she have covered up for John who not only molested, but also killed her child?
I can imagine Patsy running to John in a panic and confessing that she had snapped and lost it, hitting JonBenet on the head, but I can't imagine John confessing to Patsy that he had not only molested, but also killed JonBenet and then on top of it all, ask Patsy to do the staging for him.
And how did John's shirt fibers get into the crotch area of JB's size 12 underwear? Was it from staging the scene or from something even more sinister?

Without the evidence of chronic sexual abuse, this would be a simple case. But with the evidence of chronic abuse, the case gets complicated.
The panel of pediatric sexual abuse experts (Dr.McCann, Dr. Rau and Dr. Monteleone) unanimously agreed that there was evidence of chronic sexual abuse.
If JB was the victim of chronic abuse - was the abuser also the killer? Not necessarily.
How to put it all together? Quite a challenge imo.

Where is the key to it? One of the keys is the STAGED scene. It seems that the scene was staged by both parents, so both parents must have had something to hide. What?

Could it be that John, on being told by a shocked Patsy that she had delivered that horrible blow to JBs head, suggested to her the staging of a bizarre sex crime because he feared that signs of chronic sexual abuse would be detected at the autopsy?

Or could it be that Patsy caught John molesting JonBenet and directed her anger against her daughter?

We can assume that JB was not originally wearing the size 12 bloomies. Was her size six-underwear removed? It seems so, for Patsy said JB always wore underwear under her pajamas.
And if JB never made it to bed on that night, then too she would have been wearing size 6 underwear and not those far too big bloomies.

What forensic evidence could have been there for it to have been removed? Semen, urine or feces?

 

[UKGuy]

Several years ago, when reading about the case for the first time in the German magazine "Stern", my initial thought was that John Ramsey killed JonBenet. But at that time I didn't know that Patsy in all probablility wrote the ransom letter, nor did I know about the fiber evidence implicating her.

It seems that Patsy was the main stager of the scene. But would she have covered up for John who not only molested, but also killed her child?
I can imagine Patsy running to John in a panic and confessing that she had snapped and lost it, hitting JonBenet on the head, but I can't imagine John confessing to Patsy that he had not only molested, but also killed JonBenet and then on top of it all, ask Patsy to do the staging for him.
And how did John's shirt fibers get into the crotch area of JB's size 12 underwear? Was it from staging the scene or from something even more sinister?

Without the evidence of chronic sexual abuse, this would be a simple case. But with the evidence of chronic abuse, the case gets complicated.
The panel of pediatric sexual abuse experts (Dr.McCann, Dr. Rau and Dr. Monteleone) unanimously agreed that there was evidence of chronic sexual abuse.
If JB was the victim of chronic abuse - was the abuser also the killer? Not necessarily.
How to put it all together? Quite a challenge imo.

Where is the key to it? One of the keys is the STAGED scene. It seems that the scene was staged by both parents, so both parents must have had something to hide. What?

Could it be that John, on being told by a shocked Patsy that she had delivered that horrible blow to JBs head, suggested to her the staging of a bizarre sex crime because he feared that signs of chronic sexual abuse would be detected at the autopsy?

Or could it be that Patsy caught John molesting JonBenet and directed her anger against her daughter?

We can assume that JB was not originally wearing the size 12 bloomies. Was her size six-underwear removed? It seems so, for Patsy said JB always wore underwear under her pajamas.
And if JB never made it to bed on that night, then too she would have been wearing size 6 underwear and not those far too big bloomies.

What forensic evidence could have been there for it to have been removed? Semen, urine or feces?

rashomon,

It seems that Patsy was the main stager of the scene. But would she have covered up for John who not only molested, but also killed her child?
I can imagine Patsy running to John in a panic and confessing that she had snapped and lost it, hitting JonBenet on the head, but I can't imagine John confessing to Patsy that he had not only molested, but also killed JonBenet and then on top of it all, ask Patsy to do the staging for him.

Your question appears rhetorical, since the above circumstances or some variation thereof may have occurred?

What your remarks neglect, since they contain implicit assumptions about guilt, is that Patsy, not only most likely knew about, but also faciliated the sexual abuse of JonBenet, the circumstantial evidence to support this is overwhelming, not discounting her public disclaimer that John ever had an opportunity to molest JonBenet.

Where is the key to it? One of the keys is the STAGED scene.

The key is JonBenet's prior molestation.

Could it be that John, on being told by a shocked Patsy that she had delivered that horrible blow to JBs head, suggested to her the staging of a bizarre sex crime because he feared that signs of chronic sexual abuse would be detected at the autopsy?

He could never hide signs of her prior molestation, at best he could confuse any sexual assault inflicted on JonBenet just before she was killed. Assuming he did do this, why was it then all cleaned up and hidden from view, hardly the actions of a parent wishing to hide prior abuse? His best course of action would be to deny any knowledge at all, and blame everything on a unknown predatory pedophile, after all JonBenet can no longer speak, she is a silent witness!

Or could it be that Patsy caught John molesting JonBenet and directed her anger against her daughter?

This is as weak a theory as is Patsy killed JonBenet by accident.

We can assume that JB was not originally wearing the size 12 bloomies. Was her size six-underwear removed? It seems so, for Patsy said JB always wore underwear under her pajamas.
And if JB never made it to bed on that night, then too she would have been wearing size 6 underwear and not those far too big bloomies.

Do you have a source for Patsy's remarks?

JonBenet may not have been wearing any size-6 underwear at the time of her death, they may have been removed to facilitate a sexual assault, then used in the cleanup?

What forensic evidence could have been there for it to have been removed? Semen, urine or feces?

Certainly not urine since this was left on her urine-soaked longjohns, the stager appeared unconcerned about this, and as I have mentioned before this detail is inconsistent with Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage theory. Feces is a possibility, but would not look out of place at a homicide scene, and given the lack of concern about the the urine, I would not rate feces very high, but not rule it out completely. That leaves semen, and dna traces left by genital contact, which although cannot be proven, seems the most likely reason for her wipedown. Since if there was no sexual contact and it was an accident flowing from a rage, then why the need for a wipedown and the size-12's? I think the facts speak for themselves here.


John and Patsy colluded either directly or indirectly in the sexual abuse and death of JonBenet, otherwise there is no need for either party to defend and support the other.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

The flourescence test at the autopsy showed it was blood that had been wiped from JBR's thighs, though at first semen was suspected.
Feces would be unlikely,because an autopsy would show traces of feces in the rectum, and there was only the softt green fecal material in her intestines- none far down enough to be excreted, even through the primary flaccidity of death. Urine was released, but no evidence of feces, either on her, her panties or the long johns.

 

[BBB167893]

Now we're getting down to the real core.

 

[rashomon]

What your remarks neglect, since they contain implicit assumptions about guilt, is that Patsy, not only most likely knew about, but also faciliated the sexual abuse of JonBenet, the circumstantial evidence to support this is overwhelming, not discounting her public disclaimer that John ever had an opportunity to molest JonBenet.

I didn't mention this possibility because in that case I don't think Patsy would have taken JonBenet to Dr. Beuf that often. Would any parent who colluded in the abuse of her daughter then take the child to the doctor because of vaginitis? Wouldn't this be the last thing such a parent would do? Patsy couldn't know what Dr. Beuf would conclude. And JonBenet could also have told the doctor the truth during such a visit.
But maybe Patsy suspected something, and only too eagerly accepted Dr. Beuf's 'explanation' that JB's vaginitis was caused from bubble bath.
But bubble bath can't enlarge a six-year-old's hymenal opening to 1X1 cm.

He could never hide signs of her prior molestation, at best he could confuse any sexual assault inflicted on JonBenet just before she was killed. Assuming he did do this, why was it then all cleaned up and hidden from view, hardly the actions of a parent wishing to hide prior abuse? His best course of action would be to deny any knowledge at all, and blame everything on a unknown predatory pedophile, after all JonBenet can no longer speak, she is a silent witness!

The stager of the scene could have tried to hide prior molestation to by inflicting severe genital wounds on the unconscious child, but I think the parent who tried to do it just could not bring himself/herself to carry it out.
Or could it be that Patsy caught John molesting JonBenet and directed her anger against her daughter?

This is as weak a theory as is Patsy killed JonBenet by accident.

Why exactly do you think it is a weak theory?

Do you have a source for Patsy's remarks?

I think it is either in the interview section where Patsy is asked about the bloomies or in the section where she is asked about the underwear found inside a pair of JonBenet's jeans.

Benet may not have been wearing any size-6 underwear at the time of her death, they may have been removed to facilitate a sexual assault, then used in the cleanup?

Possible that they were removed before because of molestation, but if John was her abuser, do you really believe he would have jabbed a broken paintbrush into JB's vagina while she was alive and conscious? This would be downright sadistic.

 

[UKGuy]

I didn't mention this possibility because in that case I don't think Patsy would have taken JonBenet to Dr. Beuf that often. Would any parent who colluded in the abuse of her daughter then take the child to the doctor because of vaginitis? Wouldn't this be the last thing such a parent would do? Patsy couldn't know what Dr. Beuf would conclude. And JonBenet could also have told the doctor the truth during such a visit.
But maybe Patsy suspected something, and ony too eagerly accepted Dr. Beuf's 'explanation' that JB's vaginitis was caused from bubble bath.
But bubble bath can't enlarge a six-year-old's hymenal opening to 1X1 cm.


The stager of the scene could have tried to hide prior molestation to by inflicting severe genital wounds on the unconscious child, but I think the parent who tried to do it just could not bring himself/herself to carry it out.
Or could it be that Patsy caught John molesting JonBenet and directed her anger against her daughter?
Why exactly do you think it is a weak theory?


I think it is either in the interview section where Patsy is asked about the bloomies or in the section where she is asked about the underwear found inside a pair of JonBenet's jeans.


Possible that they were removed before because of molestation, but if John was her abuser, do you really believe he would have jabbed a broken paintbrush into JB's vagina while she was alive and conscious? This would be downright sadistic.

rashomon,

I didn't mention this possibility because in that case I don't think Patsy would have taken JonBenet to Dr. Beuf that often. Would any parent who colluded in the abuse of her daughter then take the child to the doctor because of vaginitis? Wouldn't this be the last thing such a parent would do? Patsy couldn't know what Dr. Beuf would conclude. And JonBenet could also have told the doctor the truth during such a visit.
But maybe Patsy suspected something, and ony too eagerly accepted Dr. Beuf's 'explanation' that JB's vaginitis was caused from bubble bath.
But bubble bath can't enlarge a six-year-old's hymenal opening to 1X1 cm.

Not mentioning it excludes the possibility that Dr. Beuf was a listen and prescribe MD, after all, Patsy was paying. As I have already mentioned Dr. Beuf conducted no internal examinations, and I am not aware of any external examinations either, so Dr. Beuf may have been working entirely from a description of JonBenet's symptoms. JB's vaginitis was caused from bubble bath of that I am skeptical, particularly as a diagnosis, if this is the case then you have answered your own question, this diagnosis explains why Patsy took JonBenet to Dr. Beuf, she paid, he prescribed!

But bubble bath can't enlarge a six-year-old's hymenal opening to 1X1 cm.

Precisely, so patently Patsy was running the Dr. Beuf show, otherwise she would never have felt confident enough to take JonBenet to him.

The stager of the scene could have tried to hide prior molestation to by inflicting severe genital wounds on the unconscious child, but I think the parent who tried to do it just could not bring himself/herself to carry it out.
Or could it be that Patsy caught John molesting JonBenet and directed her anger against her daughter?

This is a very curious logic here, so rather than killing John she kills JonBenet, or rather than assaulting John she sexually assaults JonBenet, if you love your child, why should you wish her dead and sexually violated, why not the abuser? There are two possible motives for the staging , as you suggest 1. to obscure any prior molestation, or 2. to fake an intruder assault? Both indicate forward planning and deliberation.

So it is a weak theory because it is contrary to not only common sense, but is an insult to any notion of maternal instinct e.g lets all kill our children if we discover they have been abused?

A more credible variant of this is that an enraged Patsy killed JonBenet because she was not indulging John in his particular version of quality time with his daughter.

Possible that they were removed before because of molestation, but if John was her abuser, do you really believe he would have jabbed a broken paintbrush into JB's vagina while she was alive and conscious? This would be downright sadistic.

Of course it would be sadistic, but then just run through her prior injuries, asphyxiation, her whack across the head, her facial bruising, all those abrasions described as stun-gun markings, and any unknown sexual molestation, which can take many forms, so how out of context is her vaginal injury, its even possible to argue it is less severe and sadistic than her head injury, or her asphyxiation?

Your own description downright sadistic likely typifies the person who killed JonBenet, for me its a no-brainer, and fits into the profile of a pedophile who is controlling, manipulative, coercive and totally self-centered!


.

 

[twinkiesmom]

It's not a weak theory if you believe this was generational child abuse and Patsy herself was also a victim.

You have to also recall that Patsy was turning this innocent child into a sexpot...for the general public or someone in particular?

<<Since if there was no sexual contact >>
You can't rule out sexual contact with her thigh...just no rape in the traditional sense. If the molester was known to the child, he may have started with less invasive methods and increased the level of contact as she got older. The rapist doesn't want to get caught by having to take her to an emergency room with an acute vaginal tear.

The key to this case (if you believe this was a sexually motivated crime) is to figure out what went wrong that led to the elimination of the victim.

There are lots of possibilities:
The abuse could have gone too far (strangulation to unconsciousness).
The victim could have threatened to tell.
The mom could have walked in on it and swung wildly with a flashlight.

 

[Solace]

I didn't mention this possibility because in that case I don't think Patsy would have taken JonBenet to Dr. Beuf that often. Would any parent who colluded in the abuse of her daughter then take the child to the doctor because of vaginitis? Wouldn't this be the last thing such a parent would do? Patsy couldn't know what Dr. Beuf would conclude. And JonBenet could also have told the doctor the truth during such a visit.

Rash,

Patsy is questioned about talking to the doctor about JonBenet's bedwetting. She says "I don't recall". But in fact she did, according to the records the police were able to get. FYI.

 

[UKGuy]

It's not a weak theory if you believe this was generational child abuse and Patsy herself was also a victim.

You have to also recall that Patsy was turning this innocent child into a sexpot...for the general public or someone in particular?

<<Since if there was no sexual contact >>
You can't rule out sexual contact with her thigh...just no rape in the traditional sense. If the molester was known to the child, he may have started with less invasive methods and increased the level of contact as she got older. The rapist doesn't want to get caught by having to take her to an emergency room with an acute vaginal tear.

The key to this case (if you believe this was a sexually motivated crime) is to figure out what went wrong that led to the elimination of the victim.

There are lots of possibilities:
The abuse could have gone too far (strangulation to unconsciousness).
The victim could have threatened to tell.
The mom could have walked in on it and swung wildly with a flashlight.

twinkiesmom,

It's not a weak theory if you believe this was generational child abuse and Patsy herself was also a victim.

Its weak because it does not explain very much, we already know about the generational issues these can be factored into give us some background.

JonBenet was murdered to keep her quiet, it is that simple, the person(s) who killed JonBenet had more than one opportunity to not only revive her but call for medical assistance, but neither option was chosen.

She was left to die, then asphyxiated in cold blood, after being subjected to a viscious sexual assault, it was no accident!

.